Jump to content

New Virtuals. Happy & Extremely Angry at the same time

*Triforce*

By *Triforce*
in General geocaching topics

Followers 6

Recommended Posts

*Triforce*

+*Triforce*

Posted
Posted

To Groundspeak:

i am happy that there will be new Virtual hides to find. I am EXTREMELY ANGRY on how you decided to dole them out. I don't care about your fancy algorithm. Make it available to all or none. 

I understand your "excuse" to get rid of them (placed in bad spots, replacing actual hides). But we all know that it was all about the $$. Your failed attempt to push users to Waymarking is why you ended them.

With new restrictions being put into state areas around the country, Virtuals are a perfect way to take someone to a special place without the "plastic trash" issue. (And skip the earthcaches:  they are dull in  my opinion).

Think about it.... 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
The A-Team

+The A-Team

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, *Triforce* said:

I understand your "excuse" to get rid of them (placed in bad spots, replacing actual hides). But we all know that it was all about the $$. Your failed attempt to push users to Waymarking is why you ended them.

The text quoted above clearly indicates that you do not understand.

If you refuse to accept the facts, then you won't get much sympathy here.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, *Triforce* said:

I understand your "excuse" to get rid of them (placed in bad spots, replacing actual hides).

Actually, the reason I've heard was all about the excessive time required of the lackeys and of the volunteer reviewers to deal with them, and especially to deal with the ones that were not published.

FWIW, it's the same reason that led to a year-plus hiatus on new challenge caches, and to significant changes to the guidelines for challenge caches.

With that in mind, a very limited release of new virtual cache listings makes perfect sense.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
hzoi

+hzoi

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, *Triforce* said:

I am EXTREMELY ANGRY on how you decided to dole them out.

I wish I had one, too.  But I didn't make the cut.

I also wish I'd made lieutenant colonel the first time.  But instead of screaming about it, or resigning my commission, I determined that I'd do what I could to show the promotion board they had gotten it wrong.  Second time around, I got picked up.

Since my family and I depend on my career progression but not on a Virtual Reward, I have taken getting passed over for this much more in stride.  I'll keep hiding the caches I like.  If that eventually gets me the right to publish a virtual cache, cool.  If it doesn't, so be it -- I'm not about to change my style for some mystery algorithm.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
dprovan

+dprovan

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, *Triforce* said:

I understand your "excuse" to get rid of them (placed in bad spots, replacing actual hides).

Actually, the reason I've heard was all about the excessive time required of the lackeys and of the volunteer reviewers to deal with them, and especially to deal with the ones that were not published.

Well, to be honest, I think we have to agree those are two sides of the same coin: the reason reviewers had to spend so much time arguing with people about virtuals was because GS was trying to force a higher standard.

56 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, it's the same reason that led to a year-plus hiatus on new challenge caches, and to significant changes to the guidelines for challenge caches.

Well, yes, but the run away virtuals themselves presented a very real practical problem, while challenge caches always struck me as more people not liking them conceptually than them presenting any actual problem that warranted the amount of control GS exerted against them. Whenever I asked, "Where are you seeing this problem?", I either got mumbles or, at best, someone pointing to a string of challenge caches and I personally knew were quite reasonable, well accepted, and didn't cause any problems at all. But someone saw them on the map and considered that a problem a priori.

Link to comment
The A-Team

+The A-Team

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Joshism said:

The decision to bring Virtuals back on a limited basis as a trial run is exactly the right decision. If this is successful I expect Groundspeak will allow more Virtuals in the future, but best to be cautious.

I'm not sure if they would consider doing the same thing again (or at least not for many years), but if they ever do, I'd hope those who were rewarded in this round were excluded from the next round. That's not to say that those same people wouldn't be able to hide another great cache, but it would be great to give another group of high-quality cache owners the opportunity to show what they can do.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...